DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws;
        d=gmail.com; s=gamma;
        h=sender:message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc:subject
         :references:in-reply-to:x-enigmail-version:content-type
         :content-transfer-encoding;
        b=xvb4aAXa2mu/BxV2jnnwkbV0OddOEMfxmnHU13yFPL+fhx9BnohH9mzkH9RZiOXEz9
         sdmlDW2cXM3IdIYhGWWlpEJdKV74aN36W5PT48kn6GtRDHDD+oAEJ0qyptCw5nw2X9+O
         n6DqMHpRJ4W7O5/uqJZy7pykDRzo+B5YXkd3w=
Sender: =?UTF-8?Q?Timo_Ter=C3=A4s?= <timo.teras@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4CAD9782.3050207@iki.fi>
Date: Thu, 07 Oct 2010 12:48:50 +0300
From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Timo_Ter=E4s?= <timo.teras@iki.fi>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.9.1.12) Gecko/20100915 Thunderbird/3.0.8
Precedence: list
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Jon Clausen <alpine@ymmv.dk>
CC: alpine-devel@lists.alpinelinux.org
Subject: Re: [alpine-devel] i486 vserver kernel?
References: <20101004110235.GG2458@nx8220.ymmv.dk> <1286197843.28650.61.camel@ncopa-desktop.nor.wtbts.net> <20101006150135.GB2482@nx8220.ymmv.dk> <1286439953.1540.12.camel@ncopa-desktop.nor.wtbts.net> <20101007090257.GA2467@nx8220.ymmv.dk>
In-Reply-To: <20101007090257.GA2467@nx8220.ymmv.dk>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

On 10/07/2010 12:02 PM, Jon Clausen wrote:
> On Thu, 07 Oct, 2010 at 10:25:53 +0200, Natanael Copa wrote:
>> On Wed, 2010-10-06 at 17:01 +0200, Jon Clausen wrote:
>>> On Mon, 04 Oct, 2010 at 15:10:43 +0200, Natanael Copa wrote:
>>> Is it feasible to introduce multiple builds? Sort of:
>>>
>>> linux-vserver-i486-2.6.32.24-r0.apk
>>> linux-vserver-i586-2.6.32.24-r0.apk
>>
>> This would be the best, yes. Unfortunally it would require some extra
>> maintenence work. How about 3rd party modules? dahdli-linux-vserver for
>> instance. I also does a quick test to verify that the kernel actually
>> boot in a virtual machine before I push the change. Should I test both
>> i486 and i586? The biggest issue is that those things are not a one-time
>> job and currently I'm pretty much at the limit of what I can maintain.
> 
> Yeah, I kinda figured it'd be something like that, so until someone comes
> along with reasons to switch back to i586/i686 I'm happy :)
> 
> If/when someone does, then I'm just going to have to look into setting up a
> build system.

i486 optimization would be good for uniprocessor systems. Basically UP
kernel for i486, and SMP kernel for i586+.

But yes, it's more work. I wonder if we could automate the "does the
kernel boot test". I think it should be doable with qemu + a script to
monitor console output (e.g to check that we get getty prompt).

- Timo


---
Unsubscribe:  alpine-devel+unsubscribe@lists.alpinelinux.org
Help:         alpine-devel+help@lists.alpinelinux.org
---